This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH]: __attribute__((deprecated))

At 9:42 PM -0200 12/14/01, Alexandre Oliva wrote:

>On Dec 14, 2001, Ira Ruben <> wrote:
>>  1. typedef int T1 __attribute__ ((deprecated));
>>  2. T1 x;
>  > 3. typedef T1 T2;
>>  4. T2 y;
>>  5. typedef T2 T3 __attribute__ ((deprecated));
>>  6. T3 z __attribute__ ((deprecated));
>>  no warning is issued
>>  for line 5 even though T3 is defined in terms of deprecated T2
>>  because T3 itself is being explicitly deprecated.
>How about:
>typedef T2 T4;
>IMO, it shouldn't generate a warning, because I'm not using anything
>that is explicitly deprecated.  It may well be that, whenever T1 is
>removed, T2 is going to be defined to something else.  Otherwise, IMO,
>it should be explicitly marked as deprecated.  In fact, I'd prefer if
>4. didn't generate a warning.

I've been thinking more about what your are saying.  Is it that you 
just want to reduce the number of repetitive warnings?  Thus it's 
sufficient to say that "typedef T1 T2;" is warned because it's 
defined in terms of a deprecated object and thus there is no need to 
warn for any uses of T2.  Correct?  If so, I think that is equally 
reasonable. Less code too :-)


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]